June-September 2013 RSS feed for this section

Mitchell Grabois

 

New

I discovered a new species
in the near wetlands this morning

I was up to my knees in sludge
as we note-takers often are

when I spied it on a leaf
and examined it

It was not a creature to be startled into flight
half snail/half yellow-jacket wasp
its stinger protruding from the posterior
of its shell
 
I determined it was wingless, slow to attack
not an easy responder to provocation
therefore mutated with advanced anger-squelching capabilities
by means of a valve
located between its antennae
though this speculation
deserves further study

New to the world
yet it is obviously endangered
despite the sympathies it will provoke
in humans



Self-Discovery

Searching for my origins
I know I can’t find them on Geneology.com
I know none of my ancestors was a slave
or an Irish lord

I’m way too far out of alignment for that
so I write thousands of porn poems
dedicate them to the Marquis de Sade
and e-mail them to the editors of literary magazines

who respond with 
photos of their inflamed genitalia
along with sympathetic rejections

It’s not you, they say
It’s me




© Mitchell Grabois


Nick Zegarac Blu-ray and DVD Reviews May – August 2013

   

Casablanca on Blu-ray

No one film will ever satisfy everyone’s opinion as being the greatest of all time. But if a decision had to be made, Michael Curtiz’s penultimate wartime melodrama, Casablanca (1943), is a worthy contender. Based on an unproduced play, Everybody Comes To Rick’s by Murray Burnett, the screenplay finally fleshed out by Howard Koch and Julius and Philip Epstein plays fast and loose with its assortment of unsavory characters, their past indiscretions and current scheming – all in an attempt to escape Nazi occupation on a plane bound for Lisbon.

In retrospect, it all seems to fit so neatly together. But at the time, there was great chaos behind the scenes. In truth, Casablanca was just one of 52 films on the Warner slate for 1942: a well-timed bit of pro-Allies war propaganda. For years, rumors have abounded that Ronald Reagan and George Raft were first considered for the role of Rick, the hard-bitten realist saloon keeper who comes face to face with the girl he thought he had finally flushed from his system back in Paris.

In fact, neither Reagan nor Raft was ever considered for the part. As for Humphrey Bogart, he had been a Warner contract player for more than a decade, yet largely relegated as a second-string thug on the lam in gangster pictures starring Edward G. Robinson or James Cagney.

In many ways Casablanca was Bogart’s graduation from murderers’ row. If he had not proven himself amiable as a leading man there is little to suggest his career would have survived. He was hardly Hollywood’s ideal of the romantic figure. Yet, Bogart is every bit a lady’s man in Casablanca: his cynicism with lovers, friends and foes alike, and his bitter, careworn inner torment proving irresistible to women.

Shooting began under a tight deadline. The schedule was anything but smooth. Convinced that her husband might be having an affair with his co-star, Bogart’s first wife, Mayo Methot, kept close watch on the set, causing Bogart to be overtly aloof toward Ingrid Bergman. The actress would later comment: “I kissed him but I never knew him.” Yet that tension behind the scenes seems only to have enhanced each performance. Together, Bogart and Bergman are the quintessential war-torn lovers,  destined to be apart even though, as the audience, we come to realize they ought to be together.

As rewrites arrived almost daily to the set, Bogart and his co-stars grew more impatient and uneasy about the last act. Would Isla Lund (Ingrid Bergman) go away with her husband, freedom fighter Victor Laslo (Paul Henreid), or remain behind with the man she truly loved, Richard Blane (Bogart)? The Epsteins could not decide and as filming progressed, establishing this resolution became more immediate. In a moment of sheer brilliance – or perhaps mere exhaustion for a conclusion to their story – the Epsteins turned to each other and simultaneously spoke the same line of dialogue: “Round up the usual suspects!” It was an inspired bit of creativity.

For those who have never seen Casablanca, the story opens with Nazi Major Strasser (Conrad Veidt) arriving in Casablanca to oversee the capture of Ugarte (Peter Lorre), a man who murdered two German couriers in the unoccupied dessert. Strasser is first greeted by French Prefect of Police, Louie Renault (Claude Rains), whose roving eye is frequently focused on the desperate though attractive refugee girls seeking letters of transit to immigrate to America.

Louie and Rick are fair-weather friends: Rick allowing Louie to win at his casino tables to keep his official capacity from interfering in the daily operations of his cafe. Rick’s Cafe Americain is a hub of black market activity where everything from diamonds to human cargo is traded to the highest bidder. This lucrative hotbed is not wasted on Senior Ferrari (Sidney Greenstreet), a slave trader who also owns the seedy Blue Parrot bar just down the street. Nor is Louie entirely convinced that Rick’s stoicism is anything more than mere smokescreen for the mysterious reason he had to leave America. “I like to think that you killed a man,” Louie tells him. “It’s the romantic in me!”

To any and all inquiries, however, Rick is silent. When Louie informs him that he plans to arrest Ugarte for the murder of the couriers, Rick’s response is “I stick my neck out for nobody.” Ugarte is arrested after a shootout at the cafe and later dies of wounds inflicted by his Nazi captors. But Strasser has a Nazi dossier on Rick that illustrates a previous pattern of providing aid and assistance to enemies of the Third Reich.

Enter the luminous Ilsa Lund, on the arm of freedom fighter Victor Laszlo. Described by Louie as the most beautiful woman to ever visit Casablanca, Ilsa’s mere presence in the cafe is enough to send shockwaves of contempt through Rick. After the cafe closes for the night, Rick quietly gets drunk while his piano player, Sam (Dooley Wilson), looks on. The halcyon haze from this binge generates a memorable flashback. We see Rick and Ilsa in their prime some years before: passionate lovers in Paris before the occupation. On the eve that Ilsa is supposed to meet Rick at the train station she instead sends him a cryptic letter, explaining that they can never be together. Understanding that Rick’s life is in danger if he stays behind, Sam coaxes him onto the last train out of France.

Rick awakens from his stupor in the wee hours of the morning to discover Ilsa at his side. She attempts to explain herself, but Rick cannot see beyond his own bitterness and jealousy. He admonishes Ilsa, driving her out of his cafe with dark, cold words. The next day Victor asks Rick if he will sell Ugarte’s letters of transit to him. But Rick denies this request and tells Victor to ask his wife instead. Ilsa confesses to her husband the more superficial details about her affair with Rick, then quietly sneaks off to the cafe to beg then threaten Rick for the letters herself. After some romantic friction, the two share a night of passion, and Ilsa informs Rick that she can no longer resist him. She will do whatever he says.

Rick asks Ilsa to bring Victor to the cafe after hours the following night because he intends to hand over the letters of transit only to him while keeping Ilsa for himself. However, when Victor and Ilsa arrive at the cafe they find a preening Louie ready to arrest Victor as part of the conspiracy for the murder of the two couriers. In a moment of inspired brilliance, Rick doublecrosses Louie, holding him at gun point while he forces him to sign Ilsa and Victor’s safe passage. Rick then tells Louie to telephone the airport’s radio tower to confirm their reservations. Instead, Louie calls Strasser with a cryptic message, thereby alerting him of their plan of escape.

Rick, Victor, Ilsa and Louie arrive at the airport where Rick explains to Ilsa in private how their love can never last. She is getting on the plane with Victor while Rick stays behind to make sure their takeoff is successful. As the plane begins to taxi the runway, Strasser arrives and is killed by Rick in a shootout. Louie, who now has the opportunity to arrest Rick for the murder, instead informs his officers to “round up the usual suspects.” Louie tells Rick that it is best he go away for awhile, adding his own intensions to accompany him. “Louie, this looks like the beginning of a beautiful friendship!” Rick exclaims before the two men fade into the night fog for parts unknown.

And so it has been between the film itself and moviegoers around the globe for 70 years. Anyway you analyse it, Casablanca is a milestone motion picture. Under Michael Curtiz’s unerring direction it emerges as the most adroit, romantic and satisfyingly stylish film of the 1940s. It is perfect entertainment!

In retrospect, Dooley Wilson’s Sam is the film’s most remarkable character. At a time when black performers were considered little more than servants or comic relief, Sam is neither.  He is, in fact, Rick’s equal, and at times, even his salvation. It is Sam who first encourages Ilsa to leave his employer alone.  It is Sam who saves Rick from certain Nazi capture at the train depot in Paris.  It is Sam who looks after the Rick who has succumbed to drunken self-pity and despair.

It goes without saying that Bogart and Bergman (the latter on loan from David O. Selznick) are at the top of their game. Their on screen chemistry is “the stuff that dreams are made of.”  As the audience, we yearn for the reconciliation of Ilsa and Rick in the first act, are glad when it sort of happens at the beginning of the third, but have our hearts torn asunder by the final reel. In the process, we all become the disillusioned romantic that Rick used to be, while recognizing that the ending is just as it should be. That’s an extraordinary cinematic achievement, because in the final analysis we are both saddened by and satisfied with the ending.

Casablanca frequently hovers in the top five on most critics’ “greatest movies ever” lists. It is also one of the most oft misquoted movies in film history. For the record, Rick never says “Play it again, Sam,” but rather, “Play it. If she can stand it, I can.”  After viewing Casablanca in excess of 100 times throughout the course of my life, I have to say that I still consider it the greatest movie ever made, if for no better reason than it continues to generate a perennial freshness each time I watch it. The film has not dated. In fact, it continues to hold me spellbound in the dark. Hence, Casablanca remains that rarity amongst film art, or as playwright Murray Burnett wisely assessed of a true classic some time ago, it is “true yesterday, true today and true tomorrow.” So, Sam, play it. Not for old time’s sake, but again and again – for all time’s sake!

Casablanca was one of Warner Home Video’s early Ultimate Edition Blu-Rays with a very crisp, yet slightly homogenized image quality. For the film’s 70th anniversary, Warner has rethought its mastering efforts to create a brand new, arguably more film-like presentation in 1080p. Yet, I’m not entirely certain I appreciate the efforts. First and foremost, I should point out that there is nothing wrong with this new minting.  But by direct comparison to the aforementioned Ultimate Edition, this 70th Anniversary transfer is much darker, with more film grain present and a loss of fine detail due mostly to its darker rendering. Arguably, this is how the film looked when audiences saw it back in 1943. But is this how audiences in 2012 want to enjoy it? Ah, that remains open for discussion.

The DTS mono audio is as bombastic as ever. Doing a direct comparison between the UE and 70th I can’t say that I detected any sonic differences and/or improvements. Where the 70th Anniversary excels is in its extra features. Some 13 hours of archival and newly produced featurettes have been assembled on all things Casablanca and Warner Bros.

First up is “You Must Remember This: The making of Casablanca,” followed by “Bacall on Bogart,” a marvellous retrospective of Bogie’s career. Then there’s “Carrotblanca,”  the Bugs Bunny cartoon spoof, and, of course, the original pilot for a 1950s television series that proved a colossal flop. We also get “As Time Goes By: The Children Remember,” a loving tribute from Stephen Bogart and Pia Linstrom. There are also audio and video outtakes, deleted scenes, interviews and expert audio commentaries from Roger Ebert and Rudy Behlmer: all previously made available as part of the UE.

Regrettably, Warner continues to play these extras little mind in terms of image quality. All are in 480i and many are in rough shape from a visual standpoint. Warner’s “Night at the Movies” recreates the experience of going to the cinema circa 1943 with trailers for Now Voyager, plus vintage newsreels and Merry Melodies cartoons.

“Casablanca: An Unlikely Classic” is a new featurette with contemporary filmmakers affectionately waxing about the film’s enduring magic and appeal. We also get the 1947 radio broadcast of the film and Max Steiner’s scoring sessions which provide some fascinating alternative takes of the songs and tracks best remembered in the film.

“Michael Curtiz: The Greatest Director You Never Heard Of” is a very entertaining, somewhat brief look at Curtiz’ miraculous career at WB and elsewhere. Fans will eat this one up. Three feature-length documentaries round out this comprehensive compendium of extras. “Jack L. Warner: The Last Mogul” and “The Brothers Warner” both critique the creative family that gave us one of the most celebrated film studios in the world. And then there’s “You Must Remember This: The Warner Bros. Story.” Though hardly as comprehensive as “MGM: When The Lion Roars,” at five hours, Richard Schickel’s tribute to the studio and its enduring cinema classics is a must have documentary that spans the entire history of Warner Brothers.

Like all of WB’s other oversized box sets, this one comes with its assortment of tangible extras too: a 62-page book that is heavy on photos but light on text, four drink coasters in a faux-leather box and reproduction of the 1942 French poster.

Bottom line: this is Casablanca. Even without all the hoopla and extras it is a film that belongs on everyone’s top shelf, right next to Ben-Hur, Gone With The Wind, The Wizard of Oz, The Sound of Music, The Ten Commandments, Citizen Kane, The Bridge on the River Kwai, The Godfather and the yet-to-be-released Lawrence of Arabia!

 

Blithe Spirit on Blu-ray

Can the dead come back to watch over the living? This contemplation is at the crux of David Lean’s Blithe Spirit (1945); an ethereally genuine – if slightly morbid – romp through the occult and spiritualism. Based on Noel Coward’s whimsical drawing room comedy, the film’s screenplay (by Lean, Ronald Neame and Anthony Havelock-Allan) sticks remarkably close to Coward’s original. Reportedly, Coward wrote Blithe Spirit from start to finish in five days at a seaside hotel while on holiday, with only two lines of dialogue changed before its premiere. Coward, who pilfered his title from Percy Shelley’s poem “To a Skylark” – and would later refer to it as “superficial,” was slightly unprepared for the controversy that arose amongst critics, most of whom thought that a play poking fun at death at the height of WWII was, quite simply, in bad taste. Critics aside, the public loved it and Blithe Spirit became a smash hit, running 1,997 performances.  Hollywood put in their bids to produce it. But Coward had been entirely unimpressed by previous translations of his work on the big screen in America and instead chose to sell the rights to Blithe Spirit to General Films, a British production company. As a film, Blithe Spirit has everything going for it; an exemplary cast, glowing Technicolor, Coward’s acerbic wit, and masterful director David Lean at its helm.

Curiously enough, neither Lean nor Rex Harrison wanted any part of it. Lean did not feel that comedy – dark or otherwise – was his forte, while Harrison took his cue from the London stage adaptation and was therefore afraid playing a middle-aged man would harm his “sexy Rexy” reputation. As such the part was tailored to suit him as a younger man. Kay Hammond made the transition from stage to film as the rather randy blithe spirit. But the only other West End alumnus to make it to the screen was Margaret Rutherford, who had at first balked at playing the part. She was, in fact, a devoted spiritualist herself, and one who took umbrage at Coward’s representation of the spiritualist as a dotty, cotton-headed, flighty fool. It was only after the playwright convinced the actress that his take was meant to delineate the true believer from the hapless charlatans (who purport to dabble in the occult merely to make a quick buck) that Rutherford agreed to be in the production.


As a film, Blithe Spirit is rather unnerving, perhaps because it never takes the supernatural seriously. Without its ghostly trappings, the play is just like any other Coward stage vehicle from this vintage, with its long-suffering, harridan-ridden protagonist longing to be free of his apathetic existence. Coward always saw the piece as a tragedy, rather than an outright comedy. And true enough, David Lean’s film is neither as spooky as anticipated, nor quite so out-and-out funny as one might expect. What remains is engrossing and inquisitive: both pluses for audiences to enjoy. We open on the loveless, but pastoral life of a narcissistic writer, Charles Condomine (Rex Harrison) and his second wife, Ruth (Constance Cummings). Charles’ first wife, Elvira (Kay Hammond), died prematurely of pneumonia and has been buried some seven years. In that interim it seems Charles and Ruth have lived an exemplary life together, waited on hand and foot by their frenzied maid, Edith (Jacqueline Clarke). Yet, Elvira’s memory is still very much alive in Charles, perhaps as a perfunctory escape. For Ruth, despite all her culture and more obvious physical charms, remains as waxen and emotionally frigid as a sculpture.


One evening, the couple decide to entertain old friends, Dr. George Bradman (Hugh Wakefield) and his wife, Violet (Joyce Carey). The only other guest is Madame Arcati (Margaret Rutherford), a spiritualist who has agreed to perform a séance after dinner. Charles has invited Madame Arcati strictly as part of the research he is conducting for his latest murder-mystery novel. And although everyone is amused by Madame Arcati’s didactic behavior and peculiar recitations during the séance, no one – least of all Charles – is laughing when the evening’s “harmless” entertainment conjures his first wife back from the dead. At first, no one except Charles can see her. This predictably leads to all sorts of marital misunderstandings, with Ruth becoming increasingly incensed by the way her husband is behaving. It is only after Charles begs Elvira to levitate several objects about the room that Ruth suddenly realizes he has been telling her the truth.

In life Elvira was something of a trophy wife, indulging infidelities to occupy herself while Charles wrote his novels. In death, however, she is something more of a devilish prankster who wants Charles for her own once again. Ruth goes to Madame Arcati to demand she reverse “the spell” put on their home and send Elvira back into the great Beyond. As Madame Arcati is quite unable to do this, Ruth becomes increasingly cold and aloof toward Charles. Now it is Elvira who comes up with a plan. She fixes the brakes on Charles car then asks him to take her for a ride. The inevitable fatal crash that is sure to follow will bring Charles’ spirit to her side. Unfortunately, Ruth takes the car out for a spin instead. She is thrown and killed, her invisible, though very angry poltergeist returning home a few hours later to assault Elvira. Unable to rid himself of either his first or second wife’s ghosts, Charles goes to Madame Arcati to beg for her help. She regales him with a previous case that inspires her to dive head strong into various incantations.

Nothing seems to work until Madame Arcati discovers that Edith is also a medium. She can see Ruth and Elvira as plainly as Charles can. Including Edith as part of her final exorcism, Madame Arcati drives Ruth’s and Elvira’s spirits back towards the abyss of time. Unfortunately, even this attempt is not entirely successful. True enough, Ruth’s and Elvira’s ectoplasmic manifestations are no more. But Madame Arcati continues to sense their presence in the house. Nervously, she encourages Charles to leave his home at once, preferably for a trip abroad. Charles agrees. His bags levitate toward him. The front door opens and the convertible top to his automobile is brought down.

What Charles is quite unable to fathom is that Ruth and Elvira are up to no good, reasoning that if they must spend their eternity together then Charles is going to join them with all speed. Sure enough, Charles loses control of his car and is killed off the same bridge where Ruth died, his spirit landing with a thud between his first and second wife, the three spirits doomed to spend what can only be anticipated as a highly charged and mildly toxic eternity together.

This ending was changed from the play to comply with censorship. In the play, Charles casually strolled out of his home while Elvira and Ruth hurled furniture and flatware at one another, declaring his great relief at being rid of them both. The Production Code absolutely forbade this conclusion, stating that, in resurrecting Elvira, who inadvertently kills Ruth, Charles also has become a co-conspirator in her murder and must therefore ultimately not go unpunished. But the film’s revised ending does more than satisfy the code. It draws out the audience’s sympathy for these blithe spirits and forces our egotistical hero to face a most justly deserved fate. Arguably, Charles has never been in love with anyone but himself. But in death, he will be forced to confront and surrender this vanity or face a most unflatteringly complicated and utterly restless eternity.

If Blithe Spirit sounds like an odd duck, it is. There has never been a film before or since to challenge its unflappable wickedness or giddy ferocity. Curiously, such deftly calculated resentment and despair never unhinges the entertainment value of the piece, perhaps because so much of Noel Coward’s own adroit humor is peppered throughout. Despite Coward’s claim that the play is more tragic than anything else, the film trips along effortlessly with tongue firmly in cheek; its resilient approach to death and the undead refreshingly light without becoming silly.

Much has been made of the fact that Kay Hammond, alive or dead , was much too old to ever be married to Rex Harrison’s Charles. And truth be told, in her garish green makeup and scarlet glowing lips and fingernails, she is something of an uncompromising fright. Nevertheless, one can infer that in the seven years since her expiration, an inevitable decay has further aged her into the present. And Hammond is a droll comedian besides, most readily amused by contributing to the deconstruction of Charles’ current marriage to Ruth.

Rex Harrison’s performance, one of stoic cynicism overturned into utter disbelief, is pitch-perfect. Yet, despite his obvious charisma and comedic charm, the actor never quite takes center stage, leaving Margaret Rutherford’s daft spiritualist as the cornerstone of the film’s enduring success. Reportedly, David Lean thought Rutherford’s performance wholly unfunny. Yet, it became the only part in the film to garner universally good reviews from the critics. Viewed today, we can see better still just how masterful Rutherford’s performance is, her proud underpinnings of a real spiritualist at work, lending credence to her monumentally clever turn. She is at once brilliantly feather-headed, yet firmly a believer in her craft and that makes her performance all the more engrossing and genuine.  In the final analysis, Blithe Spirit is unsettlingly supernatural. David Lean preserves the play in a fairly straightforward adaptation. The film is moody and, at times, quite disturbing, and it will undeniably continue to haunt audiences for many good years to come.

Criterion’s Blu-ray, in conjunction with a considerable restoration effort put forth by the BFI in 2008, yields a razor-sharp 1080p presentation that will surely not disappoint. Still, the transfer is at the mercy of the original 3-strip elements and certain scenes continue to exhibit “breathing” of the image and slight “flicker.” Nevertheless, the Technicolor has been perfectly aligned to produce a gorgeously varied and textured visual presentation. Colours glow off the screen. Fine detail is evident throughout and age-related artefacts have been greatly tempered. The audio is mono and well-preserved, with minimal hiss and pop.

Extras include Barry Day’s comments on the film, Lean and Coward, an interview with Coward from the mid-1960s and the film’s original theatrical trailer. I have one pet peeve. Criterion has woefully undernourished this disc with chapter stops. We get nine – count them! – nine chapters for a two-hour movie. Frankly, this is pathetic, and I cannot understand why Criterion continues to be so skinflint on this basic necessity in the digital format. Otherwise, Blithe Spirit on Blu-ray comes highly recommended. At present, it is only available as part of the David Lean Directs Noel Coward box set that also includesThis Happy Breed, Brief Encounter and In Which We Serve.




Nick Zegarac is a freelance writer/editor and graphics artist. He holds a Masters in Communications and an Honors B.A in Creative Lit from the University of Windsor. He is currently a freelance writer and has been a contributing editor for Black Moss Press and is a featured contributor to online’s The Subtle Tea. He’s also has had two screenplays under consideration in Hollywood. Last year he finished his first novel and is currently searching for an agent to represent him.

Rachel Rutkowski

A bird rammed itself into
My father’s windshield.

It left behind feathers and
Splattered insides before
Bouncing to the next car.


                    We sat in stilled silence,
                    The wipers getting rid of the remains


There are so many remains…

                   
                        The remains of the all the lipstick
                        That stuck to the cap when I shoved them
    Closed.



The remains of my soda cans
On your floor, after I snuck out one night.

                   
                    My old shoe laces cut down
the middle

        they are gray now with dirt staining the seams.



Our remains of us
    In a park swinging
        With leaves falling around us.


               
                            I thought I saw you there, behind the tree,
    But then I remember.
                   
            I am alone, here.



© Rachel Rutkowski

Sy Roth

 

Write Me a Poem

Write me a poem, he insisted.
But a poem would not do him justice.
Too narrow a fellow, lost easily in the grass of words.
Needed instead were large swatches of cloth,
Christo drapes across the Rio Grande, easily drifting in the wind,
orange organza and yards of tulle
draped about Greek statues and Roman columns.

Words like slivers of wood under fingernails are too weak,
too painful to rescue memories and feelings.
Needed are an army of Japanese painters’ broad strokes
with hake brushes sweeping delicately in ink,
black on white, in simple swirls of intricate intent
a message borne from the side of the hake.
Deliver a fete of happiness and sadness where words fail.
Design delicate hake joyful grins.
Paint squiggles where they entwine and
clutch each in a never-ending embrace.



© Sy Roth

David Gough

David Gough is a Liverpool-born artist who moved to San Diego, California, in 2005.  His work has been included and featured in many exhibits, and he has published two books: D3ad/Ends and Rise – Man/Son and the Haunting of the American Madonna.

El Barco Des Tontos (The Boat of Fools)

Melancholy Shadow

 

Death of Winter

The Mission (Lana Del Rey)

Conrad

Something Witchy

Death of the 60s

Transgression – Her Words Hung in the Air

David Herrle interviews David Gough, painter

Pushkin: “Into the field the devil evidently doth take us, Spinning us round and round every which way.”

 

I became acquainted with painter David Gough after striking up a correspondence about his Man/Son: The Haunting of the American Madonna collection (which was exhibited at the Hyaena Gallery in Burbank, California), since I was neck-deep in the writing of my upcoming book, which includes a section on the Sharon Tate murders.  Exploring his work beyond the Manson-related stuff, I found that David is an exceptional and astute artist who deserves a worthy place in Surrealist history.  His work tends toward the “dark” and grotesque, but a sensitive mind and eye are behind it.  I intend this exchange to reflect our mutual interest in the doom of Sharon Tate and her friends, the phenomenon of the Manson Family and some of the key themes of David’s art. – David Herrle

 

Herrle: The slaughter of Sharon Tate and her friends (and the LaBiancas) is a pivot point in U.S. history – and human history in general.  You describe the Tate legacy as essentially American: “Because that’s what America does.  It fosters the grotesque death of its celebrities and interweaves them as some part of its mythical folklore.”  You raise a good point.  James Dean, Grace Kelly, Marilyn Monroe were pop-Olympians who met horrible demises, for example.  As a native Liverpudlian, do you view the U.S. as being particularly pendulous between glitter and gore, fame and ferocity?  Are Yankee stars double-valued if they go out with a bang or an arterial spray?

Gough: There’s a guaranteed infamy for sure, by the very nature of celebrity, and everything that is inherent in the product of that. The waning star, who becomes a box office guarantor upon bloody demise, is akin to any artifact that gains value posthumously. It could be perceived as a form of contemporary martyrdom, but certainly a bloody headline guilds the lily.  Is the relationship purely an American device? I believe that it is.  [Filmmaker] Kenneth Anger understood that when he compiled his tabloid grimoire Hollywood Babylon, which could in fact be a precursor to the notion of “glitter and gore,” as a mythological franchise.

 

Herrle: Your Man/Son painting collection and Rise book include American Madonna in their titles.  You describe the U.S.’s 1960s as “a decade christened by a faux slain Madonna”, and you admit the exhausting nature of your research into interrelated sinisterism: “[W]hen I get to the bottom there is Sharon Tate, the disfigured goddess.”  Sharon wasn’t pure and innocent, and her house was porous for all manners of scum (including some of the Mansonites), but by all accounts she was a gentle, loving person.  You know my conflation of her and Marie Antoinette.  To me Sharon was graceful beauty sacrificed by crass and envious wretches, rabble revolting against aristocracy, losers lacerating the prom queen.  She cast spells of both numinosity and envy.  Elaborate on your impressions of Sharon Tate.

Gough: Initially, Sharon was – on a very superficial and chauvinistic level – a cipher, or at least my search for the ultimate tragic muse, a Lizzie Siddal figure. I’d been transfixed by her in The Fearless Vampire Hunters as a kid, and so there was a dissonant thread there that I had wanted to trace from my Liverpool origins to my eventual relocation to California. Of course, I hadn’t grasped the full and terrible connotation of the very human, flawed Sharon yet: the bloodied, dead pregnant Sharon at Cielo drive.  I had just this rather archaic notion of a brutalized angelic figure, revered but pristine and sustained by the reverence of that memory. It was when I began painting her that her luminescence literally melted away to reveal the manifest ugliness of her ambitions, that she became the lamb and wolf in the center of the Ouroboros.

 

Herrle: A few years ago Charlie told Marlin Marynick that “[the Beatles] wasn’t saying anything,” but in the months leading up to the Tate murders he exploited the weird mystery of the band’s so-called White Album to excite his disciples.  You refer to the Beatles song “Revolution 9” and MKUltra in almost the same breath, implying mind-control.  Indeed, they claimed to have been hopped up on drugs and divorced from their volition when they did the devil’s business.  All of them related similar experiences of soul-deadness and indifference.  Susan Atkins: “I didn’t relate to Sharon Tate as being anything but a store mannequin.”  Tex Watson: “I wasn’t anyone.”  Linda Kasabian: “My mind went blank.”  (Similarly, Sirhan Sirhan and his lawyers claimed that he was hypno-programmed to be the fall guy for RFK’s assassination – and, of course, there’s Jim Jones’ People’s Temple.)  Then again, Atkins later said, “We were alert.  We knew what we were doing.”  In agreement with Vincent Bugliosi, I think that they were in their wits that night and the dissociative savagery was mostly due to bloodlust and rage, similarly to how Hutus gleefully butchered Tutsi neighbors.  They became human sharks driven wild by human chum.  Share your thoughts on mind control, the overall Beatles factor, the murderers’ states of mind.

Gough: Here was where I got into a real whirligig of insanity, because as someone brought up in the Beatles hometown, I had to inevitably qualify how those four moptops who changed the world with “love is all you need,” became dark prophets for Manson’s twisted game. Remember, Bugliosi had revolved the case for motive around the notion that the White album and the book of Revelation were – in Charlie’s twisted mind – one and the same.

Taking that idea on face value renders the argument that songs are codified incantations waiting to be unraveled by a shaman. This is presented in a 20th-century courtroom, not the medieval chambers of the grand Inquisition, remember. Who invoked, then, the Devil in the details? Except, Charlie never convinces me as the Machiavellian assassin his infamy portrays. Sure, he can talk up a storm except – up until his release from Terminal Island – he was a petty criminal.  His rap sheet is laughably comic to some extent. What happened when he was incarcerated to mold the Messianic monster?

We know that MKUltra was performing unclassified experiments on criminals during and beyond that period, without consent on Terminal Island and McNeil State Prison (the same prison both Manson and Sirhan Sirhan were held in). That Manson was also paroled through the Haight Ashbury state clinic, sponsored by the NIMH (National Institute for Mental Health, which had associations with a PSYOPS program in Tavistok going back to 1942. That the use of psychotropic drugs such as LSD had been used to influence and control human behavior.  That Eastern philosophy had also been studied as part of initial mind-control techniques for a fledgling initiative called Bluebird in the 1950s. Hidden between the nuances of melody was “Revolution 9” (Charlie’s Catcher in the Rye?). I’ll tell you, I listened to that song on loop for fourteen hours on a day when the heat was 106 degrees, in a studio with little ventilation, and thought I was entering the mouth of madness. It’s easy, then, to see how with the aid of mind-bending hallucinogens in the desert wilderness, one can rise up a dark army to do deadly deeds. 

 

Herrle: John Aes-Nihil insisted that the Tate/LaBianca murders were anything but coincidence, and you quote author Peter Levenda in your book: “[F]or the occultist there truly is no such thing as coincidence.”  You also quote a 1987 Manson interview in which he says that he both influenced and was influenced, that the crime “had no logic,” that he “was stuck in that psychotic episode” along with the others.  Could this be true to any degree?  Diabolical filmmaker Ken Anger admitted that his cinema was but “a transparent excuse for capturing people…working Evil in an evil medium.”  Can this method also be attributed to Charlie?  After all, most of Vincent Bugliosi’s prosecution was built on the premise that “[Manson’s] philosophy…led up to [the] murders.”  Who deserves the most guilt: the ringleader or the performers?

Gough: We are all culpable, and if memory serves, Manson likes to remind us that he is “Nobody” and “everybody.” That he was merely the Everyman locked in an inevitable happenstance – not one not of his doing, but of some universal integer, a collective, or an inherent bad juju.  Again, we are faced with a terrible dichotomy: one of predisposition by some omniscient presence, or a sequence of random variables which collide to some flashpoint event.  Both notions frighten me to death.

 

Herrle: No honest person can deny Manson’s peculiar ability to belt out some memorable rants.  He’s as quotable as Yogi Berra or Napoleon.  We listen to a lot of his epigrammatic, oddly poetic flourishes as children peek through their fingers at scary scenes in a movie.  Nonsensical/humorous: “Richard Nixon is my divorce court.  He’s my Elvis Presley’s testicles.”  Poignant: “I am only what lives inside each and every one of you…I am only a reflection of you.”  Koan-like: “How can explain no such thing as being no such thing?  If there is no such thing, then how can you explain no such thing is no such thing?”  Environmentally sensitive: “Anything you do that’s destroying the atmosphere is taking your life.”  How do you receive Charlie’s spiels?  Is it a matter of a methodical madness or a mad method?

Gough: I like that: “methodical madness or a mad method.”  I’d say it’s both. I listened to his rants to the point that, at times, I could hear his own voice invading my own. A lot of his dialogue is delivered like honky-tonk but falls flat on scat. He’s like a bad surrealist rapper, or a redneck Ginsberg on speed. I think there’s something in the rhythm, a method to his delivery that appealed to his fucked up charges. He’d have been laughed out of City Lights.

 

Herrle: In the same vein, should we admit worthiness in Charlie’s artWhere do we draw the line between the source and the product?  David Byrne rejects the notion of judging art by its artist: “I don’t care who or what made it…I don’t need to see their CV to like it.”  Menno Meyjes’ Max portrays Hitler when he was still a destitute and struggling artist.  Max Rothman, a Jewish art dealer, tries to wrest Hitler’s creative side from his Thanatotic side by helping him find his artistic authenticity.  After Hitler hollers a seminal “blood Jew” speech to a packed hall, Rothman is beaten to death by frothed-up attendees of the rally.  That was Hitler’s art: pools of blood and the creation of corpsesI wonder just how much of the Mansonites’ crimes were based on Charlie’s failed music career.  Could Charlie, like Hitler, have been something better?  Or do you think that he, like Hitler, was an empowered loser who did find his authentic art?

Gough: A good friend of mine is continuously frustrated by what he perceives as my obsession with an intellectual dwarf. I have to agree with his assessment, Manson, without the “con” in “conspiracy” is the archetypal snake-oil salesman, and a mediocre one at that, except – and here is the true unveiling of my purpose – I am inclined to believe that had he been truly atrocious, his “art” would have been lauded.  In that much he was innovative, because he was born before the time when lowbrow had esteem and crass was cachet. You could make the case that, in the similar vein of Hitler, he took the easy way out, and made a dictator of his ambitions instead, except which legacy holds the greater value now: that of blood or paint?

 

Herrle: You specialize in detecting and analyzing “sinister architecture” in structures, locations and items.  Liverpool, your hometown, seems to be one of the many physical vortices of mystical evil – and, fittingly for the Manson story, the Beatles hale from the town.  (I can’t help but think of the name of the Tate Liverpool art gallery.)  You point out that Madame Blavatsky stopped in Liverpool en route to India, and that the town is home to 13 Masonic lodges and the pyramidal Mackenzie tomb.  “Something was dark in Liverpool,” you write, “something darker than a Clive Barker novel.”  You even refer to the opening hubbub of the 2012 Winter Olympics as “occult ceremony.”  Are such symbols and events designed, merely coincidental or conforming to an overall historical/spiritual pattern?  Please elaborate on some of your observations and conclusions.

Gough: If we are all the summation of our surroundings, then it could be argued that even on a subterranean level our behaviors are formulated geographically. The very foundation of human civilization is its adherence to a certain sacred geometry. Be it pyramid or church, the aesthetic and mathematical, mysticism of structure is maintained from earliest Sumeria to Vegas. Now, my theory of sinister architecture works on the premise of equations all converging like threads in a tapestry toward some flashpoint event. In this case: the steaming valve being August 8th and 9th, 1969 and the Manson murders. Inherent in that are commonalities. Institutions built on sacred native burial grounds, homes built on tunnels, Egyptian iconography, dates that coincide with significant astronomical alignment, and glaring historical coincidences from the destruction of Solomon’s Temple to the detonation of the A-bomb at Nagasaki. Sinister architecture is inherent in everything, and no more imposing than surrounding the Tate/LaBianca murders.



Herrle:
What artists have influenced you the most?  You’ve done a self-portrait in which Vincent Van Gogh’s head spiritually morphs into yours.  Aside from the similarity of your surnames, why do you also use the “Van” sometimes?  Tell us about your affinity for (identity with?) him.

Gough: The artist I’ve returned to consistently since the age of 12 is Bosch, so I would have to name him first. It’s the baseness of human condition as epic parable that is appealing, along with the magnificence of spectacle. Goya’s so-called black paintings leave me gaping on the chasm of my own charlatanism. And at the moment, I’m rediscovering my love of the Weimar artists, the Expressionists in particular: Otto Dix, Max Beckmann and George Grosz.  One can see the crawling bug that so offended and reflected the repellent Hitler, when he staged his Entarte Kunst exhibit. As for the use of Van in my name, it’s an acronym, which for years I balked at purely because of the connotation that comes with it. Now of course, having lived and endured all the inevitable pitfalls of being a practicing “figurative” artist, I feel I can wear the moniker as a level of irony. The whole process of artistic expression is a kind of madness after all.

 

Herrle: Speaking of famous artists, you’ve a nice, eclectic mix of portraits in your Visage collection, including Kurt Vonnegut, William Burroughs, Hunter S. Thompson, Poe, Joseph Conrad and – most importantly – Lana Del Rey (in Joan of Arc iconography).  Were these commissioned works or personal projects?  If you like, please share your thoughts on some of them.  And why Lana (who I find compelling and lovely)?

Gough: The portraits are mostly good way of exercising my skills.  They don’t usually take very long, and I suppose they are a tip of the hat to artists who have influenced me. Why Lana Del Rey? Because after the whole SNL thing where she was vilified in the press, I saw her as a media construct, the ultimate ironic figure: a beneficiary of bad press, catapulted to the glare of the spotlight for mediocrity by mediocrity. It all struck me as a self-perpetuating trial by fire, which ultimately it was when you see the level of deception something like that diverts from true issues on the world stage. I’ll agree.  She is quite lovely, however.

 

Herrle: As a self-proclaimed necrorealist, most of your work involves the macabre (I hate that term) and grotesque.  There’s a Baudelairean vibe in both your work and how you present it.  For instance, you call your Exploding Musea measured reflection on the ravages of time eroding beauty as something innately beautiful.”  Those caught in the desperate dash for cosmetics and cosmetic surgeries feel differently, and who among us don’t shudder at the thought of the ultimate ravages: graveyard worms?  “Western civilization squirms uncomfortably around the notion of death,” you write in your Artist Statement.  Why do Westerners tend to have this fear?  As Shakespeare’s Richard II said, “Let’s talk of graves, of worms, and epitaphs.”  Tell us about necrorealism.  Tell us about the erosion of beauty.  Tell us about death.

Gough: Necrorealism was an art movement I discovered within the last few years.  It was started in Russia following the Cold War to represent the fall of idealism through death. I have always struggled to be categorized, as it’s something which is symbiotic with pandering to the marketplace, but it seemed as good a representation of where my manifest ideas lie as any.

I possibly see death in a similar way as Dali, who had a paradoxical relationship with death.  To paraphrase, he said something like “It has been killing me my entire life, with its cold voluptuousness.”  He saw death as a seduction, a gradual corruption of the flesh, and I think there is something of that in the way that Westerners perceive it that makes them uncomfortable – as if it’s something contrary to Puritanism. The taint of rotting meat, bloody offal and squirming maggots certainly have a devolved lasciviousness about them.

 

 

Herrle: What about you and all those skull paintings?  They make up the majority of your Theothanatos collection.  A skull doesn’t seem to be just an obvious symbol of mortality and decay for you, so what is its significance in your peculiar symbology?

Gough: Theothanatos began with a very different pretext in mind.  It was to be my truck with religion, my pulpit to pulpit, my taking God and the whole heavenly host to task, and for the first three or four paintings of that series, I feel I successfully held my own. That was until I painted Axiom (the huge skull in the sky, emblazoned with the black cross) before I realized that in fact the entire tenor of the series was a process of grief.

I was brought to my knees, reminded that I am an ant in the face of the black abyss – though not in any kind of metaphysical way, you understand. The skulls took on a life of their own, obsessional and invested with the characters of three friends who had died, and the significance of the number three in my life.  It became the realization that any statement for legacy’s sake could only ever dissolve into dust.

 

Herrle: Philosopher, novelist and sage G.K. Chesterton says it’s OK to look down into hell as Dante did, but you’ve seriously misinterpreted existence if you end up looking up from hell: “That the brutal forces always besiege and often capture the citadel does not prove that they are the citadel.”  In Chesterton’s The Man Who Was Thursday protagonist Syme concludes that “bad is so bad, that we cannot but think good an accident.”  Likewise, Pascal teaches that “there is enough light for those who desire only to see and enough darkness for those of a contrary disposition.”  The truth often hurts, but hurt is not the truth.  David, we tend to see the ever-grinning skull behind every face; we can’t ignore the deafening thumps of the heart of darkness.  But are we looking up from hell, cherry-picking the darkness, distracted from purposeful Joy?  You write that “we constantly live under the pretext that there is some message to be gleaned from existence.”  Is there a message, a soul, a salvation?

Gough: Are we merely searching blindly, stumbling over strands in an attempt to find our way to a greater understanding, or is the path we uncover just happenstance, the cosmic illusion of order? Are we not just searching, then, for a validation for the pain of living? The martyr’s reward? Humanity diluted to the microcosm of Christ hanging from the cross.

It’s too great a question to contemplate, because there are too many platforms already trying to define what is and isn’t moral. When faced with the true nature of human existence, it becomes something that seems to require a signifier of civilized order or, rather, civilization as we propose to understand it. Good and evil are parables that can only co-exist by the virtue of the other, and I think Chesterton also said that Art, like Morality, has to draw a line somewhere.

 

Visit David’s official art site here and his blog here.

His new book, Rise: Man-Son and the Haunting of the American Madonna, is now available!